Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Research Article
20 August 2024

Efficacy of CARVYKTI in CARTITUDE-4 versus other conventional treatment regimens for lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma using inverse probability of treatment weighting

Authors: Winfried Alsdorf https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3018-2437 [email protected], Joris Diels https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9456-9120, Francesca Ghilotti, João Mendes, Teresa Hernando, Patricia Cost, Jordan M Schecter, Nikoletta Lendvai, Nitin Patel, Ana Triguero https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9895-9644, and Margherita Ursi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8821-9397Author Info & Affiliations
Volume 13, Number 9
https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2024-0080
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: The phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT) CARTITUDE-4 (NCT04181827) demonstrated superiority of CARVYKTI (ciltacabtagene autoleucel; cilta-cel) over daratumumab, pomalidomide and dexamethasone (DPd) and pomalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (PVd) for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients who have received one to three prior line(s) of therapy (LOT[s]) including an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor, and are refractory to lenalidomide. These analyses estimate the relative efficacy between cilta-cel and other common treatment regimens, for which no direct comparative evidence is available. Materials & methods: Patient data were available from the CARTITUDE-4, CASTOR, CANDOR and APOLLO RCTs. Imbalances between cohorts on key patient characteristics were adjusted for using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Relative efficacies were estimated with response rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for overall response rate (ORR), very good partial response or better rate (≥VGPR) and complete response or better rate (≥CR), and with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for progression-free survival (PFS). Sensitivity analyses using different analytical methods and additional covariates were explored. Results: Key characteristics were well balanced across cohorts after IPTW. Cilta-cel showed statistically significant benefit in PFS (HRs: 0.11–0.51), ≥VGPR (RRs: 1.51–5.13) and ≥CR (RRs: 2.90–35.24) versus all comparators, and statistically significant improvements in ORR over most comparator regimens (RRs: 1.22–1.90). Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Cilta-cel demonstrated benefit over other common treatment regimens, highlighting its potential to become a new standard of care option for lenalidomide-refractory RRMM patients with one to three prior LOT(s). These comparisons help to demonstrate the improved efficacy of cilta-cel in countries where the standard of care may differ from DPd/PVd.

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary materials.docx)

References

1.
Chung C. Role of immunotherapy in targeting the bone marrow microenvironment in multiple myeloma: an evolving therapeutic strategy. Pharmacotherapy 37(1), 129–143 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
2.
Orlowski RZ. Why proteasome inhibitors cannot ERADicate multiple myeloma. Cancer Cell 24(3), 275–277 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
3.
Anderson KC, Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV, Stewart AK, Weber D, Richardson P. Clinically relevant end points and new drug approvals for myeloma. Leukemia 22(2), 231–239 (2008).
PubMed
Google Scholar
4.
Yang Y, Li Y, Gu H, Dong M, Cai Z. Emerging agents and regimens for multiple myeloma. J. Hematol. Oncol. 13(1), 150 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
5.
Botta C, Martino EA, Conticello C et al. Treatment of lenalidomide exposed or refractory multiple myeloma: network meta-analysis of lenalidomide-sparing regimens. Front. Oncol. 11, 643490 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Lecat CSY, Taube JB, Wilson W et al. Defining unmet need following lenalidomide refractoriness: real-world evidence of outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma. Front. Oncol. 11, 703233 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
7.
San-Miguel J, Dhakal B, Yong K et al. Cilta-cel or standard care in lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma. N. Engl. J. Med. 389(4), 335–347 (2023).
PubMed
Google Scholar
8.
Palumbo A, Chanan-Khan A, Weisel K et al. Daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N. Engl. J. Med. 375(8), 754–766 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
9.
Usmani SZ, Quach H, Mateos M-V et al. Carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab versus carfilzomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (CANDOR): updated outcomes from a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase III study. Lancet Oncol. 23(1), 65–76 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
10.
Dimopoulos MA, Terpos E, Boccadoro M et al. Daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in previously treated multiple myeloma (APOLLO): an open-label, randomised, phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 22(6), 801–812 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
11.
Dahlberg S, Liu PY. Prognostic factors in clinical trials. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 22(3), 193–196 (1992).
PubMed
Google Scholar
12.
Martin T, Krishnan A, Yong K et al. Comparative effectiveness of ciltacabtagene autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 versus physician's choice of therapy in the Flatiron Health multiple myeloma cohort registry for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. EJHaem. 3(1), 97–108 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
13.
Weisel K, Martin T, Krishnan A et al. Comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 vs physician's choice of therapy in the long-term follow-up of POLLUX, CASTOR, and EQUULEUS Clinical trials for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Clin. Drug Investig. 42(1), 29–41 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
14.
Sonneveld P, Avet-Loiseau H, Lonial S et al. Treatment of multiple myeloma with high-risk cytogenetics: a consensus of the International Myeloma Working Group. Blood 127(24), 2955–2962 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
15.
Li F, Morgan KL, Zaslavsky AM. Balancing covariates via propensity score weighting. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 113(521), 390–400 (2018).
Google Scholar
16.
Zou G. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am. J. Epidemiol. 159(7), 702–706 (2004).
PubMed
Google Scholar
17.
Chesnaye NC, Stel VS, Tripepi G et al. An introduction to inverse probability of treatment weighting in observational research. Clin. Kidney J. 15(1), 14–20 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.
Hernán MA, Robins JM. Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. Am. J. Epidemiol. 183(8), 758–764 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
19.
Grambsch PM, Therneau TM. Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals. Biometrika 81(3), 515–526 (1994).
Google Scholar
20.
Royston P, Parmar MK. Restricted mean survival time: an alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 13, 152 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
21.
Dong N, Kelcey B, Spybrook J. Identifying and estimating causal moderation for treated and targeted subgroups. Multivariate Behav. Res. 58(2), 221–240 (2023).
PubMed
Google Scholar
22.
Mukhopadhyay P, Huang W, Metcalfe P, Ohrn F, Jenner M, Stone A. Statistical and practical considerations in designing of immuno-oncology trials. J. Biopharm. Stat. 30(6), 1130–1146 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
23.
Mateos MV, Weisel K, Martin T et al. Adjusted comparison of outcomes between patients from CARTITUDE-1 versus multiple myeloma patients with prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs and anti-CD38 antibody from the prospective, multinational LocoMMotion study of real-world clinical practice. Haematologica 108(8), 2192–2204 (2023).
PubMed
Google Scholar
|